logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.01.10 2016가단38495
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff exercised the right of retention after suspending the construction work due to the payment of the construction cost and suspending the construction work, among the new construction of multi-household housing (Edong to Fdong) on the ground of four parcels outside D, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and four parcels of land (Edong to Fdong).

C In order to resume the Plaintiff’s right of retention, C prepared a written agreement under which the Defendant is selected as a new contractor and the Plaintiff’s construction cost is recognized as KRW 70 million among them, and 50 million among them is agreed to pay as substitute (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The details of the agreement are as shown in the attached Form.

First of all, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking the performance of an obligation under the instant agreement (under the following, the progress of the lawsuit is examined in detail), and separately, under the premise that the registration of ownership transfer under the accord and satisfaction agreement as stipulated in the instant agreement is impossible, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 50 million and damages for delay jointly and severally with C.

2. The progress of the relevant case between the plaintiff and C (the evidence No. 21, significant facts in this court) - The first instance court [the District Court 2015Gudan4245, and 21974 (Counterclaim): The plaintiff sought against C for the payment of KRW 50 million and delay damages on the premise that the ownership transfer registration under the agreement for payment in kind under the agreement for payment in kind is impossible. The appellate court [the Government District Court 2016Na4731, 4748 (Counterclaim)]]: The plaintiff's claim under the above first instance court is the main claim for the registration of ownership transfer under the agreement for payment in kind, and the main claim is dismissed and the main claim is accepted, i.e., the ownership transfer registration under the agreement for payment in kind under the agreement for payment in kind is not impossible.

arrow